Torres v. Mclemore P/[57] Order filed 9/8/23 - All further motions filed by Pltf will be automatically STRICKEN from the record and terminated by the Clerk's Office, 4:22-cv-04197

Plaintiff Israel Antonio Torres, a TDCJ inmate, alleges commissary food items went missing after a transfer between the Allred and Montford units.
Torres sued property officers Lavonda McLemore and Richard Mendez and Central Grievance Coordinator J. Back under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking $30,000 in damages for the lost items.
Torres claims the officers failed to properly inventory his property during transfer and that the grievance coordinator provided an unsatisfactory Step 2 response.
The court's docket shows Torres previously filed a virtually identical suit in this district (Civil No. H-22-3994) in which claims against McLemore and Mendez were dismissed for failure to state a claim and the claim against Back was dismissed as frivolous.
Because Torres proceeds in forma pauperis, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and concluded the current filing duplicates the earlier suit.
The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice as duplicative and malicious under § 1915(e)(2)(B) and directed the clerk to notify the Three Strikes list.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint is duplicative/malicious under § 1915(e)(2)(B)	Torres alleges missing commissary items and seeks $30,000 for loss caused by transfer and officers' inventory failures	Court records show a prior, virtually identical suit that was dismissed; the new filing duplicates that action	Dismissed with prejudice as duplicative and malicious under § 1915(e)(2)(B)
Whether the property-officer claims state a § 1983 claim	McLemore and Mendez failed to inventory property, causing loss of commissary items	Those same claims were previously dismissed for failure to state a claim	Prior dismissal stands; current suit treated as duplicative, so no new relief granted
Whether the grievance-coordinator claim is actionable	Back failed to properly respond to grievances about the lost items	The grievance claim was previously dismissed as frivolous	Claim previously dismissed as frivolous; duplicative here and dismissed

Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1993) (a duplicative in forma pauperis complaint may be treated as malicious and dismissed)
Shakouri v. Davis, 923 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2019) (virtually identical claims based on the same events qualify as malicious/duplicative)
Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1988) (claims based on the same series of events may be dismissed as duplicative)
Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846 (5th Cir. 1989) (district courts may dismiss duplicative prisoner suits sua sponte)